Price of a new clutch nowadays

[K.I.T.T.]

2 minutes ago, myfirstboxster said:

^^^ this exactly , that's when I had my IMS done , turned out to be the original bearing on 107k and was in good condition ( single row )

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, we're talking about a car with twice as many miles. There are other failure points, as mentioned previously.

Just so we're clear, I'm not anti-IMSB-replacement, but nobody's actually responded to the points I've raised about that, or the post around my rationale for not replacing earlier in this thread:

If anything, the issue around alignment is exacerbated more on a 200k+ mile engine.

[½cwt]

1 hour ago, McDonald said:

My engine number doesn't look like those listed. 62504628

No Y or I

Something else I read convinced me I was single row, so vulnerable.

Any clues?

Correct.  The 62 is your engine type (3.2 in an S?) and the next number, in your case is a 5 so '05 model year, the last 5 digits are the individual engine serial number.  2.7 987 engines start with 61.

 

The sequence obviously goes back some time, '97 model year 986 engine numbers are V, '98 are W, '99 are X adn '00 are Y, then for '01 the numbers start to conveniently match the last digit of the year.  Thankfully they didn't use Z so avoided creating a one number offset vs year which would ahve been mighty confusing...

[McDonald]

1 minute ago, ½cwt said:

Correct.  The 62 is your engine type (3.2 in an S?) and the next number, in your case is a 5 so '05 model year, the last 5 digits are the individual engine serial number.  2.7 987 engines start with 61.

 

The sequence obviously goes back some time, '97 model year 986 engine numbers are V, '98 are W, '99 are X adn '00 are Y, then for '01 the numbers start to conveniently match the last digit of the year.  Thankfully they didn't use Z so avoided creating a one number offset vs year which would ahve been mighty confusing...

Thanks for the clarification. Yes 987.1 S registered in May 05. I knew there'd be a system, it's German engineering.

[½cwt]

7 minutes ago, McDonald said:

Thanks for the clarification. Yes 987.1 S registered in May 05. I knew there'd be a system, it's German engineering.

If you really want to go down the rabbit hole with me you can download the parts catalogues for pretty much all Porsches from their website, just select your model here:

Porsche Classic Genuine Parts Catalogue - Porsche Great Britain

Each one has a decoding table for chassis and engine numbers and factory options in the early pages before it gets into the parts.

[McDonald]

1 hour ago, ½cwt said:

If you really want to go down the rabbit hole with me you can download the parts catalogues for pretty much all Porsches from their website, just select your model here:

Porsche Classic Genuine Parts Catalogue - Porsche Great Britain

Each one has a decoding table for chassis and engine numbers and factory options in the early pages before it gets into the parts.

Thanks for this. I now have a Porsche account and lots to read.

[the baron]

3 hours ago, K.I.T.T. said:

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, we're talking about a car with twice as many miles. There are other failure points, as mentioned previously.

Just so we're clear, I'm not anti-IMSB-replacement, but nobody's actually responded to the points I've raised about that, or the post around my rationale for not replacing earlier in this thread:

If anything, the issue around alignment is exacerbated more on a 200k+ mile engine.

I think this is probably my biggest concern is the alignment 

[½cwt]

20 minutes ago, the baron said:

I think this is probably my biggest concern is the alignment 

It has to go into a 7/8" deep bearing housing (yep, that's the odd imperial measurement on the bearing I referred to).  It would be virtually impossible to get it fully seated and not be in alignment.

[stew72]

7 hours ago, the baron said:

Can you reveal your source😀

One of my bearing suppliers at work. They've quoted as a favour, they don't stock the specific bearing that I believe is the OEM one - NSK BD20-17-A-DDUA17NX01 20x47x23.812mm dual row angular contact ball bearing with snap ring groove.

I won't reveal who yet as like I said, the guy who handles my account is doing it as a favour to me.

They're looking for similar or better quality alternatives. 

I get some favourable prices, although this won't be as keen as lines they stock. Would there be interest in a group buy? Pricing looks to be around £30 ish each

 

 

[the baron]

3 hours ago, stew72 said:

One of my bearing suppliers at work. They've quoted as a favour, they don't stock the specific bearing that I believe is the OEM one - NSK BD20-17-A-DDUA17NX01 20x47x23.812mm dual row angular contact ball bearing with snap ring groove.

I won't reveal who yet as like I said, the guy who handles my account is doing it as a favour to me.

They're looking for similar or better quality alternatives. 

I get some favourable prices, although this won't be as keen as lines they stock. Would there be interest in a group buy? Pricing looks to be around £30 ish each

 

 

I would imagine so, but it might be too late for me as I have to purchase in the next few weeks

[the baron]

4 hours ago, ½cwt said:

It has to go into a 7/8" deep bearing housing (yep, that's the odd imperial measurement on the bearing I referred to).  It would be virtually impossible to get it fully seated and not be in alignment.

Well that’s good to know and if anyone can get it right it will be CPS.

[pacificjuha]

17 hours ago, ½cwt said:

If this data provided from Porsche in the parts catalogue is correct, yours would be a dual row bearing i.e. your number 12007, last engine with dual row 12851.  However pending info from @K.I.T.T. on his engine number there could be anomalies.

This info you provided is spot on with the bearing my car has. It has the double row IMSB with the locking ring as shown in the image I received from the PO:

This image is the original removed IMSB from the first IMSB change performed at 191 135km (approx. 118 765mi) at the time of clutch change. Now the car has 287 271km (approx. 178 501mi).

At least I know now what bearing I need to source to get ready for the bearing change at the time of next clutch & RMS work    P.S. Currently car shows no any leaks nor metal flakes in the oil filter.

[stew72]

On 3/7/2021 at 1:07 AM, the baron said:

I would imagine so, but it might be too late for me as I have to purchase in the next few weeks

I was going to cast my net wider and see if any other suppliers could help, I've just not got round to it yet. I am doubtful if anyone in the UK that I use has one readily available though.

[Tonybandit]

On 11/12/2020 at 2:04 PM, Nobbie said:

I don’t think £700 is a worthwhile investment on a single part of the engine that is not prone to failure (if they hadn’t changed to a single row bearing, nobody would know what an IMS bearing was). Plenty of other parts that can fail on a 210k engine tomorrow. I’d also be wary of introducing an issue as mentioned above. Just get Lee to inspect the bearing for any sign of wear and if present, just replace with the standard bearing. The current one has lasted 210k, so it obviously doesn’t need one 5 times stronger!

I totally agree with this!!!!! 

I'm going to have my clutch changed and the oil inspected for any metal and if there is anything in the oil I would deffo only go for the std bearing. 

Do any indi's fit std IMS bearings or do they all just want to fit an upgrade?? 

[Tonybandit]

On 3/6/2021 at 8:14 AM, ½cwt said:

Y is 00 model year.  The 3.2 was introduced with the electronic throttle.  My car was a May 2000 registration.  The engine is a few later than yours 67Y006406 and my research which found this listing on 986Forum.com indicated this is a dual row version as the changes are in the 01 model year as you can see from the engine numbers.

Up to engine # M 651 12851 Boxster 2.7L M96.22 Double Row Bearing
Up to engine # M 671 11237 Boxster S 3.2L M96.21 Double Row Bearing
Up to engine # M 661 14164 Carrera 996 3.4L Double Row Bearing
From engine # M 651 12852 Boxster 2.7L M96.22 Single Row Bearing
From engine # M 671 11238 Boxster S 3.2L M96.21 Single Row Bearing
From engine # M 661 14165 Carrera 996 3.4L Single Row Bearing
All 2005 Boxster 987 (maybe some 2006 models) Single Row Bearing
All 2005 Carrera 997 (maybe some 2006 models) Single Row Bearing

I have a 2001 2.7 and the engine number starts 651 meaning its a 2001. 

After that it is 07xxx so according to the chart its a very low number engine so should be duel row.

Im i understanding that right? 

 

[Clivescoobydo]

On 11/11/2020 at 10:29 PM, the baron said:

After 210,000 miles my car might finally need a new clutch, it’s a 2.5 and not looking to change IMS etc as it has the duel row so pretty bomb proof.
 

Anyone had the clutch replaced recently by Porsche specialist?

That's an amazing amount of miles. As your having the clutch changed I would just inspect the bearing & maintain as necessary. If you decide to change I would also replace with a straight OE replacement. It hasn't done bad to get to 210K miles! and you wouldn't want to introduce another unknown failure mode. Can you have one on hand just in case sale or return?

[K.I.T.T.]

AFAIK, you can't 'just' get an OE replacement as Porsche won't supply the bearing. The original dual row bearings were made by NSK, which has been mentioned (and is clear from @pacificjuha's post), but these are either NLA, or difficult to find, as alluded to, which makes an OEM solution tricky also. Hence, why most (if not all) the solutions out there are aftermarket, with varying degrees of success.

As far as the alignment goes, am afraid it's not as simple as ensuring the bearing is seated correctly. Here's the best explanation I could find, but doesn't cover all aspects of this point:

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=48&t=1564383&r=32707641&hm=59909&mid=59909#32707641

 

On 3/7/2021 at 8:34 AM, pacificjuha said:

This info you provided is spot on with the bearing my car has. It has the double row IMSB with the locking ring as shown in the image I received from the PO

Would you mind sharing your engine number?

[the baron]

46 minutes ago, K.I.T.T. said:

AFAIK, you can't 'just' get an OE replacement as Porsche won't supply the bearing. The original dual row bearings were made by NSK, which has been mentioned (and is clear from @pacificjuha's post), but these are either NLA, or difficult to find, as alluded to, which makes an OEM solution tricky also. Hence, why most (if not all) the solutions out there are aftermarket, with varying degrees of success.

As far as the alignment goes, am afraid it's not as simple as ensuring the bearing is seated correctly. Here's the best explanation I could find, but doesn't cover all aspects of this point:

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=48&t=1564383&r=32707641&hm=59909&mid=59909#32707641

 

Would you mind sharing your engine number?

Thank you for the link, it made for very interesting reading and is pushing me towards leaving my dual row in place due to the tolerances all being off due to the mileage, fitting a new one could cause more issues due to circlip causing issue when removed etc, I’ve forwarded it onto Lee at CPS to get his thoughts, I think for people who have the single row bearing it’s a no brainier but the OE dual row NSK is very difficult to find and is why the after market ones are so expensive.

[Clivescoobydo]

2 minutes ago, the baron said:

tolerances all being off 

Probably a contributor to the original failures 

[K.I.T.T.]

11 minutes ago, Clivescoobydo said:

Probably a contributor to the original failures 

Don't think this is a (main) contributor as far as original bearings go, but can be with replacement bearings.

The original problem is more to do with how the IMS/B was implemented on the M96 engine. This was addressed in the 2006+ M97 engines, and I've not heard of these being an issue. Important to acknowledge that IMS/Bs have been used without issue ever since the air-cooled days - in the grand scheme of things, it's only relatively recently that this has been an issue in Porsche engines.

[map]

I have no idea what my engine number is but I do know it has the biggester IMS/Bearing assembly that Stuttgart developed which would fit M96 engines.

HTH

[Clivescoobydo]

1 hour ago, K.I.T.T. said:

Don't think this is a (main) contributor as far as original bearings go, but can be with replacement bearings.

The original problem is more to do with how the IMS/B was implemented on the M96 engine. This was addressed in the 2006+ M97 engines, and I've not heard of these being an issue. Important to acknowledge that IMS/Bs have been used without issue ever since the air-cooled days - in the grand scheme of things, it's only relatively recently that this has been an issue in Porsche engines.

Coming from an aviation technical background trending failure modes, the randomness of the failures does not lend itself to an inherent problem with the bearing design (otherwise all would fail eventually) more that something in the original engine build contributed to a small amount of failures. Personally if I removed a bearing that showed damage I would definitely consider replacing the new one periodically, however if the removed bearing was in good condition it probably didn't need replacing. And then there's always the question of what have I now introduced due to poor workmanship with the new non OE bearing installation.

[K.I.T.T.]

@Clivescoobydo, agree with all of that.

The point I was trying to make that alignment (from the factory) isn't so much a major contributing factor, as the fact the the bearings (particularly the single-row M96 one) were underspecified from the outset. This was rectified in the M97 engine, with the revised IMS and larger bearing.

Failure is exacerbated when you have cars that aren't driven +/- do not have regular oil changes (ie running 'old' for extended periods of time, if not mileage).

A good friend (and columnist for GT Porsche) recently acquired an early 'low mileage' (70k) 996. Had been looked after, but seldom used, and as such, hadn't had an oil change in 6 years (and 500 miles). It had a 'big service' including oils, all filters, plugs, etc. 8 months later it was dripping (not weeping) from a chain tensioner. All fixed now, for not too much money (by CPS), but it was established lack of use / fresh oil led to this.

[K.I.T.T.]

2 hours ago, map said:

I have no idea what my engine number is but I do know it has the biggester IMS/Bearing assembly that Stuttgart developed which would fit M96 engines.

HTH

Developed by Stuttgart, but imported from the a country in the Far East renowned for bringing many good things to the world - sushi, the Nissan GTR, the GR Yaris, Asahi beer, Initial D, not to mention car parts which have found homes in forum members' cars.

[map]

2 minutes ago, K.I.T.T. said:

Developed by Stuttgart, but imported from the a country in the Far East renowned for bringing many good things to the world - sushi, the Nissan GTR, the GR Yaris, Asahi beer, Initial D, not to mention car parts which have found homes in forum members' cars.

It was indeed overnighted but in this instance supplied by the Shropshire Shaman - component diviner, connector of parts realms and crosser of model epochs

[Clivescoobydo]

1 hour ago, K.I.T.T. said:

@Clivescoobydo, agree with all of that.

The point I was trying to make that alignment (from the factory) isn't so much a major contributing factor, as the fact the the bearings (particularly the single-row M96 one) were underspecified from the outset. This was rectified in the M97 engine, with the revised IMS and larger bearing.

Failure is exacerbated when you have cars that aren't driven +/- do not have regular oil changes (ie running 'old' for extended periods of time, if not mileage).

A good friend (and columnist for GT Porsche) recently acquired an early 'low mileage' (70k) 996. Had been looked after, but seldom used, and as such, hadn't had an oil change in 6 years (and 500 miles). It had a 'big service' including oils, all filters, plugs, etc. 8 months later it was dripping (not weeping) from a chain tensioner. All fixed now, for not too much money (by CPS), but it was established lack of use / fresh oil led to this.

Definitely agree change the oil annually not as Porsche recommend. Small price to pay for improved protection. I read somewhere that someone did an engine strip, found bearing wear but the oil round the bearing was rank. Still don't think the single row was underspecified as all would fail within the same window.  There would be a pattern and as far as I know there isn't. Perhaps Porsche don't know exactly why they fail and introduced a larger bearing to protect that particular failure mode and to restore consumer confidence before they could do a complete engine redesign.  I'm sure they tightened up a number of things not just the bearing.